If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??

[Syriusly]

When was queer marriage made legal?

Didn't you hear?. Unelected judges gave themselves the power to write laws. We don't need congress anymore.

We hear idiots making that idiotic claim.

Of course only when a court makes a ruling they DISAGREE with.....when they agree with the ruling then the judges are protecting their rights.

 

[HenryBHough]

Could not same-sex siblings marry...after all, no genetic issues!

 

[Syriusly]

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

What does "convincing and persuasive argument " have to do with the issue?. The 14th amendment does not make any such exception.

The fact that you refuse to even try to understand what the rulings mean is not my problem.

States can deny individuals their Constitutional rights- like denying convicted felons their right to own guns- but States must be able to make a convincing and persuasive argument that there is a valid justification for denying those rights.

Not that you will ever understand any of that.

 

[Syriusly]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

It got changed for queers soon will be changed for siblings. Liberals decided to change the meaning of marriage. Congradulations .

When?

When was queer marriage made legal?

Marriage is legal regardless of whether someone is straight or gay- and regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Feel free to refer to the Obergefell ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

If you want to dance away from all of your idiotic claims about what I have said to discuss the 14th Amendment- sure I am willing to discuss equal protection under the law and the 14th Amendment.

Fact is the court demolished the equal protection clause years ago when they ok'd affirmative action.

Fact is that you are obsessed with affirmative action and have no clue as to what the courts have decided about anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Could not same-sex siblings marry...after all, no genetic issues!

According to the law in most places they could not- no different than infertile siblings in that case.

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they can prove that they are infertile- but Wisconsin does not allow siblings to marry at all- regardless of fertility.

So Wisconsin has some other reason for denying siblings (and mother/son- father/daughter) marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

If you can't figure out the difference between siblings and gay couples, you can't be helped by anyone on this board.

Gay couples are exactly like straight couples...consenting adults and non familial.

 

[Seawytch]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Because marriage is a union between two consenting, adult, and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Given the return of this and similar moronic threads, clearly the Obergefell sitzkrieg is over.

It got changed for queers soon will be changed for siblings. Liberals decided to change the meaning of marriage. Congradulations .

When?

When was queer marriage made legal?

It depends on the state or country.

Come on...give us a timeline so we can point and laugh when your fears are unfounded.

 

[Faun]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

 

[Faun]

Perhaps owning a gun should be resticted to those in the military? I mean, if you want to start imposing restrictions on rights, why limit it to marriage?

We already have many restrictions on the right to marriage. Siblings can't marry and we have age minimums. THINK

Many rights have restrictions based on age and/or legal standing. What you suggest is not a restriction based on either one but merely some arbitrary reason you dreamed up. So why not impose such dreamed up restrictions on the Second Amendment? Why limit them to marriage?

 

[FA_Q2]

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

You have yet to point out how they are 'identical'.

By that standards heterosexual couples are identical to homosexual couples- and mixed race couples are identical to gay couples.

But the circumstances are different in every case.

The question is whether or not the State has a convincing and persuasive argument on why siblings should not be able to marry. This was addressed by at least one judge in one of the cases regarding gay marriage.

Yes I have, MULTIPLE times.

You are now being obtuse on purpose.

 

[FA_Q2]

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

If you can't figure out the difference between siblings and gay couples, you can't be helped by anyone on this board.

Gay couples are exactly like straight couples...consenting adults and non familial.

And yet it is so blatantly obvious that you are STILL unable to point out the difference.

 

[FA_Q2]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Newly Formed Supreme Legislature has established a 'civil right' to marry... Therefore, anyone... and by ANYONE, this includes children too... and soon we will find the Left coming to demand "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR CHILDREN, and their civil right to consent to sexual pursuits with adults... is RIGHTFULLY AND LEGALLY ENTITLED TO MARRY.

Those who claim that the decision did not do so, have not read the decision... .

What's more, where the claim is that the decision did NOT DO SO... then their own reasoning renders the decision MOOT, as unless everyone is entitled to marry, the decision PROMOTES INEQUALITY, specifically setting up US Federal Law to "DISCRIMINATE"... against those poor people who just want the same thing that everyone else, even the lowly queers, have.

 

[Seawytch]

No as a matter of fact they are not.

They are indeed both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and in each case a separate and distinct law prevents them from getting married.

When gay couples went to court for redress, they went to court for redress on their specific issue- exactly as the Lovings did when they went to court to argue that the law which said that they could not get married because of their race was unconstitutional.

When the Lovings won their case, it did not mean that inevitably that gay couples were constitutionally guaranteed a right to marriage.

What did happen was that gay couples- as the Lovings did- argued that their equal rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. States can deny people Constitutional rights- but States can only do so if they can provide a compelling and convincing argument to deny those rights- for example- denying convicted felons the right to own weapons.

States were never able to make a convincing argument as to why mixed race couples or gay couples should not be allowed to marry.

Can States make a convincing argument that marriage between two siblings should be illegal? If States can't- then they couldn't before Obergefell, if States can- then they can regardless of Obergefell.

None of that addresses the fact that the two instances are, essentially, identical.

Your tangent has nothing to do with what I have stated.

They aren't identical. Gay couples marrying are exactly like straight couples marrying. Non familial and consenting adults.

Yes they are.

You keep stating that they are not yet not actually pointing out the difference.

If you can't figure out the difference between siblings and gay couples, you can't be helped by anyone on this board.

Gay couples are exactly like straight couples...consenting adults and non familial.

And yet it is so blatantly obvious that you are STILL unable to point out the difference.

What difference? Familial and non familial? There's a HUGE difference. One is closely related by blood, the other not.

If siblings marrying have a case, they had it before Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

[Seawytch]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

 

[Faun]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

And I gave you a reason. Incest is illegal. So how can the state let them get married?

 

[Faun]

The Newly Formed Supreme Legislature has established a 'civil right' to marry... Therefore, anyone... and by ANYONE, this includes children too... and soon we will find the Left coming to demand "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR CHILDREN, and their civil right to consent to sexual pursuits with adults... is RIGHTFULLY AND LEGALLY ENTITLED TO MARRY.

Those who claim that the decision did not do so, have not read the decision... .

What's more, where the claim is that the decision did NOT DO SO... then their own reasoning renders the decision MOOT, as unless everyone is entitled to marry, the decision PROMOTES INEQUALITY, specifically setting up US Federal Law to "DISCRIMINATE"... against those poor people who just want the same thing that everyone else, even the lowly queers, have.

You're a ******* moron. Rights can be, and often are, resticted by age. Such as the right to vote. And in the U.S., marriage has long been recognized as a right.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

As a matter of fact, they are.
They are both instances where two consenting adults wish to get married and were denied access to those laws. Now one of those groups has finally managed to access them. There is not reason that the other should not also have the same access.

Of course there is. One is legal while the other is not.

lol.

That is irrespective of the actual relationship. That is the point of this debate is it not - the claim that there is no reason that they should be barred from marrying.

The legal status of too close familial relationships is a key stumbling block to siblings marrying.

Y'all have A LOT of work to do.

*sigh*

You are not listing nor do you give a damn about actual rights or equal access - something you have been falsely claiming to champion for years.

It was all about getting what you wanted and ignoring any actual impact or extension of the same. I am not surprised.

Ya NAILED IT!

That is truly all anyone needs to know, to understand "The PROBLEM".